Nearly everywhere an individual travels on roads and highways, there is routine sharing of the pavement for multiple purposes. On most roadways, cars and trucks share space with cyclists, runners, and walkers. In other locations, there are pedestrian, child stroller, wheelchair, ATV and snowmobile crossings. Often unanticipated circumstances are encountered, such as unsafe roadways, bad weather, traffic congestion, accidents, road repairs, delivery trucks that block traffic, vehicle breakdowns, stressed-out commuters, and congestion arising from bottlenecks occurring before and after large public events. All of these conditions amplify the need to be seen for those sharing the road with motorists.
Drivers face a growing number of distractions ranging from radios, and onboard audio and video devices, to the nearly ubiquitous and now well-documented, highly distracting cell phone. Given the power, mass, and velocity of modern vehicles, together with the period of time a driver requires for recognition and reaction, it can be life threatening when a cyclist or pedestrian is not noticed until the last instant. This type of situation is especially hazardous at dusk or after dark. Those who are not in automobiles, but need to share the roadside, face a growing level of danger. The threat is to both young and old alike. Such individuals have a life-saving need to make themselves seen at the greatest possible distance by approaching drivers.
Each year in the U.S., hundreds of people are killed as a result of cycling accidents. A much larger number are injured, either temporarily or permanently. An even larger population of victims exists among pedestrians. In a recent annual compilation by the State of New York, bicyclists and pedestrians together experienced 30,000 injuries and 500 fatalities. The injury numbers were represented as low, due to flaws in current accident reporting requirements. The study stated that of the major factors contributing to such accidents, chief among them are: (1) confusion on the part of a cyclist or pedestrian unable to make needed judgments, to react quickly, or take fast evasive action (often due to age or inexperience); (2) driver inattention; and (3) a driver failing to yield the right-of-way. Driver error was present in over one-third of all reported accidents.
The report stated that, “Collectively, human error is probably the most significant factor.” The carnage in other leading states, California, Florida, and Texas, is as bad or worse.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reported that in the year 2002, 660 U.S. bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles. These deaths are more frequent in the warmer months, on the busier traffic days of the week (Monday and Friday), in urban population areas, and during periods of darkness.
Motorists often share the roadside with countless cyclists, walkers, and runners. Many drivers often encounter a cyclist, walker, or jogger in dark clothing, with either no illumination or poor illumination. Accident statistics clearly indicate that the trust of these individuals in approaching motorists is misplaced. This type of hazard has become increasingly true in a society in which driving while holding a distracting phone conversation has become so common and problematic. Dialing motorists have now become their own statistical risk category, as a documented threat to others and to themselves.
Particularly during periods of darkness, improved visibility affords two distinct advantages. A cyclist or pedestrian gains an additional margin of safety. A motorist gains an additional margin of response. Each benefits from a simple but life-saving collaboration between the cyclist or pedestrian who needs to be seen, and the motorist who cannot respond until they have seen the cyclist or pedestrian. Each benefits from the motorist recognizing and responding to the presence of the cyclist or pedestrian as early as possible.
Research at the University of Michigan, funded by NHTSA, examined numerous formats and types of content used for display in road hazard and warning signs. Subjects noted a preference for signs that quickly conveyed a message in brief, meaningful text. Subjects preferred this type of message to lines, arrows, drawn hazards, and other signage in which cognitive interpretation is required to deduce an implied meaning. This is especially significant inasmuch as safe response distances rapidly close at highway speeds. This extends also to simple steady or blinking lights, which in some instances might be so small or weak as to not provide an effective, attention getting warning at all.